*Deep breath.*
Okay, first, I'm calming down and deleting this rant I typed up. I'll assume you are merely arguing out of ignorance as opposed to malice.
The problem with your analysis isn't that you are using numbers. I both greatly agree and support using numbers to analyze things. The problem is, well there are couple at least.
- You have combined Stats and Actions into the same economy. However both serve desperately different purposes and are gained through significantly different means, in addition to having vastly different limits. They are effectively economies that can not be directly translated to each other. This throws off the entirety of your analysis to drastic degrees with how it effects people. Simply separating the two economies and using something like economy as the measure of which to reduce all stats to would do wonders for the effectiveness of your analysis.
- You have focused far too much on actions as a separate entity, as opposed to their overall chains and connections to allowing other actions to work. This is something that is numerically measurable, how many actions and stats does a series of actions cost to operate, and how much is gained by replacing certain steps. Much of the reason for this is because of problem number
Fundamentally, my problem isn't that you are trying to achieve numerical analysis. My problem is that you are doing what I view as a very bad numerical analysis. You are trying to vastly over simplify the system of actions, and then trying to out right ignore the mathematics behind actions interacting with each other.
I min max for fun, and a large part of that is creating calculations to evaluate things. As such, I view you're claims that I 'Just hate numbers,' as a direct insult. I love numbers to the point where I find shoddy analysis using them to be maddening. That's my problem with your analysis, not that you are using numbers, but that your numerical analysis has merely latched on to the most obvious things you can apply numbers to, refused to expand beyond it, and simplified it to the point where it actually does not achieve what you have set out to do in the first place.
If you want me to stop calling out that your numerical analysis is wrong every time you make it, meet my standards. Otherwise admit that I have a point and that you either do not have the time or inclination to put the effort into creating an analysis to reflect it (understandable and I assure you that I, at least, will not hold ill will towards not doing the extra work), or stop complaining that I'm pointing out that you are wrong every time I catch you making a mistake.
Pointing out mistakes in analysis is something we should encourage people to do, even if we feel hurt that our time and effort creating something was easily dismantled in a fraction of the time. Even if you tell me "I can't convince you otherwise," I still have reason to critique work that you have put on this thread that here for everyone to view. This is not targeting you, this is targeting your analysis, and despite your feelings on the matter, doing so helps people put various analysis in the thread under closer scrutiny, and as such is a benefit to the thread in general.
So stop with these retorts of, 'well you just hate my form of analysis.' It's annoying that criticizing someone else's hard work is way easier than actually doing that hard work and it means that every time you make a claim you can expect way more people to poke holes into it than you have time to actually address, so I understand the frustration, but that is the nature of discussing various arguments.
